The Bunkering at The National

[TEPaul]

George Bahto said:

"How did the early bunker faces se see in the pictures posted above, evolve into the typical steep grass faced bunkers, flat bottomed bunkers?"


Moriarty responded:


"I agree.  That is the question.   When, how, and why did this change take place?   Maybe we should try to put together a time line of photos to see if we can figure it out?"  



Of course a timeline of photos should be compared to even begin to answer this kind of question! That is why I said this on post #80:

"The easiest way to determine what kind of bunker look and aesthetic Macdonald wanted at NGLA is to just check out all the available photographs of NGLA's bunkers through the late teens, the 1920s and most of the 1930s."


Apparently the suggestion got lost in what Tom Doak called 'the cacophony' on here! 
 
 

[TEPaul]

On the question of the when, why and how did the bunker look at NLGA change and the suggestion for an answer of: "The easiest way to determine what kind of bunker look and aesthetic Macdonald wanted at NGLA is to just check out all the available photographs of NGLA's bunkers through the late teens, the 1920s and most of the 1930s" I would suggest one logical answer is the following:


We can tell from photographic evidence over time of the bunker look evolution at other courses from this time and compare it to NGLA. I would submit the comparison of the bunker look over time of a comparable course to NGLA-----eg Pine Valley. The reason I submit PV as the best comparison to the evolving look of NGLA's bunkers is because both courses were probably the most completely natural sand based courses being built around this particular time (1906-into the teens).

So what do we find with the evolution of some of PV's bunkers? We find that PV's bunkers were basically created by simply striping and coring out bunker formations right out of the basically straight sand soil of that natural site----just as with straight sand NGLA and many of its bunkers that are shown in those very early photos of NGLA posted above. Clearly some of those bunkers created at PV (best examples being on #2, #10 and #18) that were extremely vertical sand faces right up against the fronts of those high greens simply proved far too steep to be able to hold and be maintained if kept with massive sand upsweeps of the kind of verticality those bunkers had. And so in each case those massive sand upsweeps were grassed down or broken up into a series of more formal bunker sets.

It's pretty clear to me the same maintenance driven alterations took place at NGLA, and one of the best comparative examples is the look of the fronting bunkers on #8 green at NGLA. There is a photo somewhere (I think I saw it at NLGA) that shows the fronting bunkers on #8 green sweeping all the way up to the green surface just as PV's did on #2, #10 and #18.

Perhaps the architects on both courses did not realize at that time that sand faces that high and vertical basically had no chance of holding and maybe they did understand that and realized it just took time to grass them down or break them into sets far below the grass upsweeps to those greens.

It's not exactly rocket science guys; it's actually remarkably logical but I do understand that some on here might want to avoid the realit of it because they have some other types of points they are trying to make such as Raynor may've copped the bunker aesthetic of NGLA from Macdonald and consequently messed up the original look of NGLA's bunkers.

[DMoriarty]

I hate to disagree with such an esteemed group of NGLA scholars, but that is the Sahara bunker.   But the hole is the early version before the green was pushed substantially back and to the right.

Here again is the photo, and the caption notes the green is to the left.  So the photo is not straight on, but taken from left of the fairway looking generally west.  That hill behind the flagpole is just short of the giant hollow right of the green (that hollow is one place on the course I know well from personal experience.)  If I recall correctly the top of that hill is the highest point on the property.  



Here is the plasticine model from the 1914 article.  I've added the yellow arrow to indicate the approximate camera angle.    The camera man was likely somewhere near the tower, probably up in it.



_______________________________________________________________________________

Of course a timeline of photos should be compared to even begin to answer this kind of question! That is why I said this on post #80:

"The easiest way to determine what kind of bunker look and aesthetic Macdonald wanted at NGLA is to just check out all the available photographs of NGLA's bunkers through the late teens, the 1920s and most of the 1930s."


Apparently the suggestion got lost in what Tom Doak called 'the cacophony' on here!

   No, t didn't get lost.  But it had already been discussed.  For example in post 68: "I agree.  It would be interesting to put together a chronology of the evolution of the look of the features over time.  I have found quite a few old photos in past publications and books, but there are some time spans missing, especially during the depression era.  Surely the club has many more . . . maybe next time you are there you will forgo playing and ask to dig through  their photographs instead?"  

[Bill_McBride]

This is a bit more about playing than researching and discussing.......but.....looking at those plasticine models above.....

I thought one of the absolute coolest things at NGLA happened almost immediately.  After we holed out on the first green, the walk to the second tee was what, five yards?  The tee is virtually a part of the far back of the green.  I have never seen a tee such an integral part of the previous green.

Wondering now, has anyone on the second tee ever been decked by a skulled pitching wedge from the blind hollow below the first green?     With a group of four players and two caddies, that is quite a target right behind the green.

[TEPaul]

I think I first saw that photo of the 2nd green (the original 11th) some years ago in one of the albums at NGLA. It does seem to be difficult to identify but for years I've felt precisely what Moriarty just described above-----eg that original green was considerably shorter than the green today. Macdonald did say in his book that he moved a few greens back at NGLA (he mentioned the 14th and 17th) and #2 (original #11) was apparently one of them (one can confirm that with the added distance of that hole on cards because the tee pretty much remainded in the same place.

I've believed for years that the right hand part of the bunker we see in that photo is what is today the Sahara bunker to be carried off the tee and the original green (we see in that early photo) was basically just over it and sloping down and away (it looks to us to be right to left because of where the photograph is taken from) plus you can also see a part of the old road that today is a maintenance road. I think the left hand portion of that bunker we see (to the left of the people standing above the steps) was probably filled in and the green was moved substantially down the hill to where we know it today.

Furthermore, it is hard to appreciate unless you go out there and look at it but the ground really does slope up substantially around the mid-body of that hole on the right towards what is now Sebonac.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley
Are you under the impression CBM was a solo artist? He surrounded himself with best and brightest minds in the game, among them Whigham, Emmet, Travis, Low, Hutchinson and Sutherland.

Mr. MacWood,

I would say yes he was a solo artist. But I guess that depends on your definition of solo artist. Elvis and Cash and Lewis were certainly solo artists, even though when they were pioneering Rock N Roll as an artform, they were borrowing a lot from one another and also from the same influences. They probably even heisted grooves off each other, but maybe it could be argued that even that is a part of what a solo artist does? So if CBM took ideas from others, or if other people took ideas from him, it doesn't take away from their respective attribution to the art object that they were concentrated on, nor does it disqualify them from being a solo artist.

But enough about my definitions, what are your rules for artistic attribution? That answer would be worthy of an entire new thread I think.

[TEPaul]

Bill McB:

Where the long tee box on #2 is now is a bit more behind #1 green than originally. What is today the back of #1 green once apparently used to be the back of the 2nd tee so it was virtually ON what is now the back of the 1st green.

It has always been my impression that the 1st green may've been substantially redesigned at some point as there is a very old photo of it that doesn't look to me much like the contours on the present 1st green. I have always wondered if Perry Maxwell redesigned the contours of #1 green because he apparently did something on that course at some point even if it is hard to get anyone to address that issue. The reason probably is that at this point no one really knows.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill McB:

Where the long tee box on #2 is now is a bit more behind #1 green than originally. What is today the back of #1 green once apparently used to be the back of the 2nd tee so it was virtually ON what is now the back of the 1st green.

It has always been my impression that the 1st green may've been substantially redesigned at some point as there is a very old photo of it that doesn't look to me much like the contours on the present 1st green. I have always wondered if Perry Maxwell redesigned the contours of #1 green because he apparently did something on that course at some point even if it is hard to get anyone to address that issue. The reason probably is that at this point no one really knows.

If it's been moved away from the green, it was RIGHT ON the green to start with.  We couldn't have been more than five paces off the putting surface.  Ultimate cool.

[TEPaul]

"Surely the club has many more . . . maybe next time you are there you will forgo playing and ask to dig through  their photographs instead?"  


I think they do. I spent a good part of two nights going through all those albums and everything else they have in and around the big room and there is some pretty amazing photographs in them including some unlabelled and undated photographs of people hitting golf shots on what appears to be some parkland estate (perhaps abroad) that do not seem to be a golf course-----just a massive and mown parkland estate.

[TEPaul]

"We couldn't have been more than five paces off the putting surface."


Bill:

The long second tee essentially isn't much more than five paces off the back of the present 1st green but my point was apparently what is today the back of the 1st green once was the back of the 2nd tee. Apparently what is today the back of the 1st green (recently redesigned taking out that amazingly cool bowl on the back left) was actually turned into putting surface by Karl Olsen, NGLA's former superintendent. I would not say I should sound like I'm certain of the latter but it is what I heard when there not that long ago.

[Bill_McBride]

"We couldn't have been more than five paces off the putting surface."


Bill:

The long second tee essentially isn't much more than five paces off the back of the present 1st green but my point was apparently what is today the back of the 1st green once was the back of the 2nd tee.

Well then, that would have been cooler but not a lot cooler - what a great introduction to the quirk of NGLA.  I really can't think of many other tees that tight to a green.  There are several at NLGA but I think that's the closest.

[TEPaul]

Bill, it sure is close but to think that the original back tee was basically an extension of the original 1st green is more amazing still.

I do not know of a putting green tee combination that can be used as a putting green OR a back tee other than the present arrangement of the back tee on #14 at Merion that generally doubles as a part of the practice putting green (when the new back tee is not in use). Even though one consideration at The Creek was to put back tee markers for #12 on the back of the Biarritz green (#11).

[Tom MacWood]

Bradley
Are you under the impression CBM was a solo artist? He surrounded himself with best and brightest minds in the game, among them Whigham, Emmet, Travis, Low, Hutchinson and Sutherland.

Mr. MacWood,

I would say yes he was a solo artist. But I guess that depends on your definition of solo artist. Elvis and Cash and Lewis were certainly solo artists, even though when they were pioneering Rock N Roll as an artform, they were borrowing a lot from one another and also from the same influences. They probably even heisted grooves off each other, but maybe it could be argued that even that is a part of what a solo artist does? So if CBM took ideas from others, or if other people took ideas from him, it doesn't take away from their respective attribution to the art object that they were concentrated on, nor does it disqualify them from being a solo artist.

But enough about my definitions, what are your rules for artistic attribution? That answer would be worthy of an entire new thread I think.

Who said anything about attribution? You said, "I doubt that the work in Chicago could have possibly prepared him for what was undertaken on Long Island. Those are two totally different enviroments with their own unique set of challenges." Were you aware he was assisted by those eminent men and others? John Sutherland was one of the foremost agronomy experts in the UK? Reginald Beale was involved as well. Do you know them?

[Bradley Anderson]

Not sure what your point is there Mr. MacWood.

But you seem to be implying that if an eminent person is involved with helping an architect with a project then that architect is not a solo artist? Would that mean then that James Taylor not a solo artist because he records with a band, and with the aid of a Producer? Sorry but I'm confused by how you define attribution.

Have not studied Sutherland. I have studied Beale however. I'm not sure how much Beale helped CBM. I wouldn't be surprised if he did help a lot though. In fact I am curious if you know if Beale had his own line on uncontaminated pure seed. Anyone in those days could have recommended a seed blend, but pure seed was a difficult commodity to secure. I wonder if that is what really set Beale apart was access to the good stuff? My guess is he did, but I base that solely on the good report that was given to the extraordinary quality of golf courses that he worked with such as Old Elm and Country Club of Detroit.


 

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Reginald Beale seems to have gotten C.B. Macdonald's favorable attention and the date seems to be right around early mid 1911 (they had been together by that time)----hence Macdonald's letter to Hugh Wilson recommending that he take the recommendations on the quantity of fertilizer to be used on the just beginning Merion East from both himself and Beale.

It seems however, that there was a rather distinct difference of opinion on this particular subject (the quantity of fertilizer to be used) between Macdonald (and Beale) and the US Dept of Agriculture's Russell Oakley (at that point Wilson had not been in contact with C. Piper because he was still abroad in the East). Obviously Macdonald had turned to the US Dept of Agriculture (Piper and Oakley) before he turned to Beale (and others) and it seems there was a distinct difference of opinion between them about what had caused the initial agronomic problems at NGLA.

It seems that Wilson must have gone with Oakley's quantity recommendation from that series of letters. Wilson I believe met with Beale but he did not mention him (I don't believe) in those so-called "agronomy letters."

Oakley said to Wilson that Beale might be an expert on golf agronomy in GB but that expertise did not necessarily translate to expertise on golf agronomy in this country. Probably a pretty cogent point, particularly at that early time in the development of golf course agronomy over here.

[George_Bahto]

NGLA bunker style evolution:

I doubt if there are many of the old photos of NGLA that I do not have, all the old ones that were in the magazines etc. plusthe NGLA club's photos

I was fortune to have been given access to their old photos, especially the ones that are in their marvelous old photo albums. I re-phot’ed (??) all of them.

My point is this: I doubt if you could trace an evolution of their bunker look over the years becasue there are huge time gap in the photos.

There are really only 2 basic time periods when they seem to have taken photos.

1.   A number of pictures were taken during the 1910 pre-opening tournament. Most of them have been posted here

2   Ir seems the next time photos were taken were during the original Walker Cup Matches in 1922

I don’t think there are any Opening Day photos

so how can you trace the evolution?

[TEPaul]

George:

I'd say one could get a pretty good idea of the evolved look of the NGLA bunkers from 1922, the year of the first actual Walker Cup (the same basic competition in 1921 was called something like The International Cup).

George Herbert Walker, by the way, was a substantial member of NGLA at the time and I believe the president of the USGA that year the first Walker Cup was held at NGLA.

I would have to think the grassing down to flat floors of the bunkers that are that way would have to have happened under Macdonald's basic reign there (again probably to do with just basic maintenance endurance reasons) because I can't imagine who else would have transitioned the course into that look after Macdonald's death. Immediately after CBM's death the club went into the 2nd WW years and after that I do pretty much know from personal experience that that course went into what could fairly be called a pretty long "sleepy" or "quiet" period with its architecture and also basic maintenance practices. In that particular way NGLA was very much like a lot of those courses of CBM's on Long Island, Piping, Creek, The Links. It's not that those kinds of people (those memberships) didn't have the money to make changes  if they wanted to, because they most certainly did, it was more a matter of regardless how rich some of those people were that was the era with a lot of clubs like that when they just didn't spend much money on their courses, certainly not architecturally. During that long era the term "shabby chic" came to be used a lot for that world and the way they basically liked to live. It was sort of like the style and ethos of the grand places of rural England----eg essentially large and grand but purposefully a bit rough around the edges.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

Phrased another way, was NGLA the new benchmark or gold standard for American golf in 1909 ?

Most definitely.  But more than that, it changed the direction of the development of gca in America.  It wasn't as if CBM just went beyond what was previously considered good.  NGLA drastically altered what the American golf establishment thought golf courses could be in this country.  Yes it was much better than most of what was out there, and it was fundamentally different as well.

Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?

Maybe others are able to figure it out on their own, but seeing NGLA was certainly an awakening for me, and where I began to understand that there were similar threads running through most if not all great golf course design.
___________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with your responses and last summary of the topic.  Because I'm ambivalent about a lot of our classic designs being invested in ultra-exclusive clubs, I wish I had a better argument to refute the very last rhetorical question you posed: "Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?"  

That's a hard call because I can think of many GCA scientists and eager-to-learn critics not getting the opportunity.  I had all the local golf juice and well-heeled friends you could ever want (without being a PGA member) and National was a tough "get."  Tougher still if you really wanted to have the experience of the course with a couple of regular friends, which is as important to me as the whole damn enterprise.

I can relate to what you are saying here.  I don't think it was always this way; given that the course was originally meant to be an exemplar of quality golf design.  But times change, and and with the trophy hunters out their today I can't say I blame the membership for mostly keeping to themselves.

Thankfully Old Macdonald will be open to the rabble, and my hope is that OM will prove to be much more than an excellent golf course in that it will remind those who look carefully just what makes any great golf course great.    That's not too much to ask for, is it George and Tom?    

______________________________________________________________________

Bill McBride,

I am not sure if you do, but I am not quite getting the distinction that TEPaul is trying to make.   Here is a photo from behind the first green, with a smooth swinging lefty putting to a far right pin.   If he had been playing right-handed, he'd have been teeing off on the 2nd hole.  Is that the tee you used?  Maybe TEPaul did not realize that they were again using this tee.



On the plasticine model the green looks the same and the tee is in approximately that spot.

_________________________________________________________________________

George,  no doubt you have everything I do.   I haven't found any photos taken during the gap you note, which is why I wonder how why people think that the bunkers were changed under Macdonald's watch.  

[Bill_McBride]

David, that's my recollection.  I thought it cool beyond any green / tee combination I'd ever seen!

[George_Bahto]

[Tom MacWood]

Not sure what your point is there Mr. MacWood.

But you seem to be implying that if an eminent person is involved with helping an architect with a project then that architect is not a solo artist? Would that mean then that James Taylor not a solo artist because he records with a band, and with the aid of a Producer? Sorry but I'm confused by how you define attribution.

Have not studied Sutherland. I have studied Beale however. I'm not sure how much Beale helped CBM. I wouldn't be surprised if he did help a lot though. In fact I am curious if you know if Beale had his own line on uncontaminated pure seed. Anyone in those days could have recommended a seed blend, but pure seed was a difficult commodity to secure. I wonder if that is what really set Beale apart was access to the good stuff? My guess is he did, but I base that solely on the good report that was given to the extraordinary quality of golf courses that he worked with such as Old Elm and Country Club of Detroit.

James Taylor? You're really on the cutting edge of music. My point is NGLA was more of a collaboration than you realize.

[TEPaul]

“I am not sure if you do, but I am not quite getting the distinction that TEPaul is trying to make.   Here is a photo from behind the first green, with a smooth swinging lefty putting to a far right pin.   If he had been playing right-handed, he'd have been teeing off on the 2nd hole.  Is that the tee you used?  Maybe TEPaul did not realize that they were again using this tee.”


“On the plasticine model the green looks the same and the tee is in approximately that spot.”



If you’re not quite getting the distinction I was making let me try to help you out. The tee to #2 is not in the same place as it was originally. The photo GeorgeB just posted should help anyone understand that as well as why it's not in the same place it was originally or was on that plasticine model. Looking at that old plasticine model will show how and why too as the original tee for #2 was to the west of that back bunker (the 1st green side of that bunker) and today it is to the east of it (or the other side of that back bunker). Matter of fact, one can even see on that old plasticine model how the original road was just to the east of that back bunker on #1. Now the 2nd tee is where that portion of that old road was and the maintenance road (that is a long run where the original road to NGLA was) curves to the left or west just to the right of the 1st green. One can see at the very bottom of the photo above showing that left handed golfer a part of the present long back tee for #2 on the other side of that back bunker.

The area that left handed golfer is putting from (in the photo above) was part of the original tee for #2 and that area that back right pin is in (in the photo with the left-handed golfer) and apparently most of the present back of the 1st green was the original tee on #2. The long tee that exists for #2 today on the other side of that back bunker did not exist originally----eg, again, as you can see on that old plasticine model that area was part of the original road into NGLA.

You said they are now using that area that left-handed golfer (I’m assuming that’s you) is putting from as part of the 2nd tee again? That’s interesting; I didn’t know that. I wonder how you know that as you’ve been to NGLA what, one time? I can’t say I see any tee markers on that area that left handed golfer is putting from on #1. If you actually teed off on #2 in the same spot that left handed golfer is putting from on #1 (a portion of the original 2nd tee) I'd say you might have teed off on #2 from the wrong place. Under the Rules of Golf you should've abandoned your first shot on #2 (Ball Played from outside the Teeing Ground, Rule #11-4) and teed off from the appropriate tee markers that you started from on #1 which on #2 would've been somewhere on that long tee for #2 on the east or other side of that back bunker on #1.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I hate to disagree with such an esteemed group of NGLA scholars, but that is the Sahara bunker.  
But the hole is the early version before the green was pushed substantially back and to the right.

Dave, I disagree.
The 2nd hole, played from the tee within the putting surface footpad, was between 228 and 262 yards.
There's no way that the 2nd green could be that far below that large hill and 228 to 262 yards from the tee.

In addition, no matter what the angle, the land form is not the landform that exists on the 2nd hole.
Once the crest of the hill is reached, and it's only about 200 yards from the tee within the 1st green footpad, EVERY portion of the land falls off, precipitously.

The hill behind that green is immense and steep.
There's nothing anywhere near the crest of the 2nd hole that looks anything like it.

It's more likely a photo of the 3rd hole, or as George Bahto suggests, some other golf course. [/size]

Here again is the photo, and the caption notes the green is to the left.  
So the photo is not straight on, but taken from left of the fairway looking generally west.  

I understand that, but, it doesn't fit the terrain at # 2.

That hill behind the flagpole is just short of the giant hollow right of the green (that hollow is one place on the course I know well from personal experience.)  

NO way.

If I recall correctly the top of that hill is the highest point on the property.  



Here is the plasticine model from the 1914 article.  I've added the yellow arrow to indicate the approximate camera angle.    
The camera man was likely somewhere near the tower, probably up in it.

Dave, it doesn't fit, no matter what the angle.
The landform at # 2 is nothing like what's depicted in the photo unless the 2nd hole was an 80 yard par 3.



______________________________________________________________________________

[TEPaul]

"It's more likely a photo of the 3rd hole, or as George Bahto suggests, some other golf course."


Pat:

Let's step back here for a moment and look that that photo in question reasonably. To do that let's first find out where it was published back then. If we find it was published or talked about by the likes of Macdonald or Whigam in some publication about NGLA then of course it couldn't be some other golf course.

The question on the floor at the moment, therefore, is can anyone prove THAT photograph was ever used in a Macdonald or Whigam publication about NGLA?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Given the yardage demarcation on the side of that plasticine model, I think you have a good point in potentially claiming that green photo may not be the 2nd (or the original) green of the Sahara at NGLA!

But again, if that particular green photo was used in a publication by Macdonald or Whigam for NGLA of course that hole photo could not be on some other golf course.